Wow, reading all this fuzz about saving the internet radio today by not playing any music, it's very interesting to see how many different viewpoints can there be on one single subject!
And one can go into endless discussions and debates about such HUUUUUUGE matters as money, business, this and that kind of copy- and other rights, organizations, laws, percentages, rentability, market and all that jazz.
While forgetting the most important thing: we should be talking about MUSIC... And it could be such an incredibly simple thing as
1) there are artists who create stuff and are happy if they can give some nice moments also to others with it
2) there are listeners who are happy to listen the stuff these artists created.
That's the bottom line.
Then, there are different channels that help to make this happen. Doesn't matter what type of media are we talking about, the only clever approach can be to serve these 2 points above. In the way that it is economically fair to all parties.
In other words: an internet radio has to satisfy its listeners AND its artists/labels while figuring out business solutions for their own financial issues.
So my first question was this when I heard about this Day of Silence thing, and it still remained unanswered: if the purpose is to reach more and more listeners and play more and more songs from more and more artists, then how the goddamn heck does it make any sense NOT to play?
A service-minded internet music radio can't afford to shut up even for an hour, in order to "show support to a cause", it just sounds stupid. (Okay, I could understand 1 minute silence occasionally, to honor an exceptionally great artist passing away, but that could be the only reason, not to speak about technical breakdowns now).
Sorry, I don't want to offend the intention of the people and the participating radios, but hey - supporting music by NOT playing music? C'mon, doesn't this sound weird to you?
Have those internet radios asked their listeners if they would agree with NOT getting service for a whole day? Have all the listeners agreed? If not, how do they dare not to play music for them, especially if it's a paid service?
Have those internet radios asked their artists/labels if they would agree with NOT playing their songs for a whole day? Have all those artists agreed? If not, how do they dare to force artists into a strike the artists didn't want???
Just ask a musician: if they want to say something, protest against something, raise their voices about an issue, would they do it by shutting up? Hell no! They would rather grab their instruments or sing, wouldn't they? If an artist, instead of saying his or her opinion by displaying his or her art, chooses to stay silent and sitting back in the corner, that artist is suppressed by manipulating powers of others.
Those who communicate in the right way, will survive. Those who don't, won't. As simple as it is. Sometimes, simple things can be very hard to grasp, for many.
As an artist myself, I only support those solutions where the listeners, the artists and the channels in between ALL benefit. And cutting back on SERVICE is the worst solution one can figure out.
If a radio station has money problems, can't they come up with solutions of how to give better service and clever marketing and promotion ideas? That's the only way to attract more listeners, artists, advertisers and other partners.
And as far as the initiating entity, the SoundExchange, I should better check them out and see how the hell is it possible what I read about them that I should PAY first, in order to obtain my copyright shares...
So I just posted a new song to my artist page on Last.FM and right now I am listening to one of my favorite tag stations - just have to find out how to turn up the volume on this computer :-))
Have a good day everyone, with a lot of cool music!